At first i must admit that i don't like philosophical arguments much, because you can pretty much support anything with them if you set premises to your liking, it's a rigged system at least partly.

But it seems to me that philosophy is used much more to support existence of gods than the opposite. I wonder why it is this way. I know of the "omnipotence paradox", but overwhelming majority are pro gods. What are your favorite philosophical arguments againts god/gods?

I give one mine, which i havent seen used. It can be used to debunk certain gods.

1. Morality comes from god/gods2. Moral teachings of the bible / quran / -insert religious text-, is against my moral beacon in several ways3. Therefore god/gods descripted in those texts do not exist

"There are those to whom knowledge is a shield, and those to whom it is a weapon. Neither view is balanced, but one is less unwise."

Premise 1. Morality comes from god/godsPremise 2. Moral teachings of the Bible / Qur'an / -insert religious text-, is against my moral beacon in several waysConclusion. Therefore god/gods described in those texts do not exist

Well, as a philosophical argument it isn't very good. Several issues crops up.

Here is one of them;

The conclusion does not follow the premises. None of the premises sets up any conditions for god(s) existing - so the conclusion cannot be about the existence of god(s).

In essence, all you can conclude from the premises is: "Therefore I disagree with the moral teachings of [insert holy text here]."

Steelmage99 wrote:Premise 1. Morality comes from god/godsPremise 2. Moral teachings of the Bible / Qur'an / -insert religious text-, is against my moral beacon in several waysConclusion. Therefore god/gods described in those texts do not exist

Well, as a philosophical argument it isn't very good. Several issues crops up.

Here is one of them;

The conclusion does not follow the premises. None of the premises sets up any conditions for god(s) existing - so the conclusion cannot be about the existence of god(s).

In essence, all you can conclude from the premises is: "Therefore I disagree with the moral teachings of [insert holy text here]."

My line of thinking was that if we presuppose that there is god/gods and morality comes from god/gods both as true, we then can start looking at various religious texts to see if we got a match up.

If there is no match up, wouldn't that mean that god/gods as descripted in those texts do not exist? And if there is a match up, god/gods in that particular religious text is indeed real?

"There are those to whom knowledge is a shield, and those to whom it is a weapon. Neither view is balanced, but one is less unwise."

Steelmage99 wrote:Premise 1. Morality comes from god/godsPremise 2. Moral teachings of the Bible / Qur'an / -insert religious text-, is against my moral beacon in several waysConclusion. Therefore god/gods described in those texts do not exist

Well, as a philosophical argument it isn't very good. Several issues crops up.

Here is one of them;

The conclusion does not follow the premises. None of the premises sets up any conditions for god(s) existing - so the conclusion cannot be about the existence of god(s).

In essence, all you can conclude from the premises is: "Therefore I disagree with the moral teachings of [insert holy text here]."

My line of thinking was that if we presuppose that there is god/gods and morality comes from god/gods both as true, we then can start looking at various religious texts to see if we got a match up.

If there is no match up, wouldn't that mean that god/gods as descripted in those texts do not exist? And if there is a match up, god/gods in that particular religious text is indeed real?

*sigh* With god/gods my dear mage apprentice, with god/gods. Think of it as a ancestry research using DNA, in this case DNA is you and research is religious texts with god/gods DNA.

"*sigh*" and "apprentice"?

Dial down the condescension, please.

Bango Skank wrote:My line of thinking was that if we presuppose that there is god/gods and morality comes from god/gods both as true, we then can start looking at various religious texts to see if we got a match up.

So you are looking for match ups between your moral convictions and those of the religious text in question, and if they don't match up then the god(s) described in the religious text......does not exist?

I'm sorry, forgive me. I was drunk and aggressive due the reasons unrelated to this topic.

Steelmage99 wrote:So you are looking for match ups between your moral convictions and those of the religious text in question, and if they don't match up then the god(s) described in the religious text......does not exist?

Exactly! And this from the point of view that morals come from god/gods AND that those religious texts are claimed to be the word of god/gods. Like the DNA parable in earlier post.

"There are those to whom knowledge is a shield, and those to whom it is a weapon. Neither view is balanced, but one is less unwise."

1. Morality comes from god/gods2. Moral teachings of the bible / quran / -insert religious text-, is against my moral beacon in several ways3. Therefore god/gods descripted in those texts do not exist

There are some issues with that argument

1 the argument is that morality comes from God, not that your own personal favorite set of rules come from God, in other words just because you don’t like some stuff from the bible doesn’t imply that it didn’t came from God

2 it wouldn’t follow that God doesn’t exist, it would at most follow that they didn’t wrote those text.

3 the argument would imply that there is an objective morality, which is something that many atheist are not willing to grant.At the end, sure you can do a good argument along those lines, but not a devastating one. (my opinion)

1 the argument is that morality comes from God, not that your own personal favorite set of rules come from God, in other words just because you don’t like some stuff from the bible doesn’t imply that it didn’t came from God

That is not an issue, because the first point already agrees that morality comes from god/gods.

leroy wrote:2 it wouldn’t follow that God doesn’t exist, it would at most follow that they didn’t wrote those text.

Yes that is true and a weakness in my argument, though if you want to nitpick i said "...descripted in those texts...", so it would be a false description of existing god.

leroy wrote:3 the argument would imply that there is an objective morality, which is something that many atheist are not willing to grant.

I don't believe in objective morality either, morality varies from person to person instead of being universal.

"There are those to whom knowledge is a shield, and those to whom it is a weapon. Neither view is balanced, but one is less unwise."

Laurens wrote:I think the problem of evil is one of the best arguments against a benevolent, omipotent deity.

It strikes right at the heart of the philosophical conundrum of suffering, which as the Buddha said is universal to everyone. The one thing that is sure in your life is that you will suffer.

The problem of evil takes this, and asks why it would happen if there is an all powerful good guy looking out for us.

Sent from my LG-H840 using Tapatalk

There are people in this would, even children and little babies and even unborn babies who suffer horrible abuse, horrible birth defects, murder, rape and so on. You probably never had to suffer any of these thing and I would guess you support killing unborn babies if you are an Atheist.

Laurens, God is looking out for you. I am not lying to you. Please please please think about this.

“..the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy

Laurens wrote:I think the problem of evil is one of the best arguments against a benevolent, omipotent deity.

It strikes right at the heart of the philosophical conundrum of suffering, which as the Buddha said is universal to everyone. The one thing that is sure in your life is that you will suffer.

The problem of evil takes this, and asks why it would happen if there is an all powerful good guy looking out for us.

Sent from my LG-H840 using Tapatalk

No doubt that this is a good and valid argument against God, but if you think about it, there is no contradiction between the existence of a good and powerful entity that would allow evil and suffering.

For example a father that won’t let her 12yo daughter to go to a party would cause temporal suffering in her, but it is easy to see that such suffering is necessary for a “greater good”

In this example the father still loves her daughter and he still is powerful enough to prevent that suffering, but yet he decided to allow that suffering to happen.

In other words, it is true that it seems that we could have been living in a better world, with less evil and less suffering, but you can’t really prove it. This is why you have a good argument but not a knockdown argument

leroy wrote:That is not what is meant by objective morality, universal morality and objective morality are 2 different things, one can be true without the other.

Yeah, i checked, i have confused objective morality with absolute morality.

leroy wrote:With “objective” it is simply meant “independent from human opinion” for example to say that the square root of 81 is 9 is objectively true, and would be true regardless if some humans disagree.

Ok, you have different definition of objective. Dictionary definition is:

(of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

So compared to subjective morality, follower of the objective moral values lack empathy and one's own reasoning, so it's basically outsourced morality and just following what is told.

leroy wrote:So your argument would be strong, only if you grant that morality is objective in this sense. (Which is something that many atheist wont grant)

Well, even if there were objective morality, it changes to subjective when it reaches to us because it requires interpretation.

"There are those to whom knowledge is a shield, and those to whom it is a weapon. Neither view is balanced, but one is less unwise."

Ok, you have different definition of objective. Dictionary definition is:

(of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

So compared to subjective morality, follower of the objective moral values lack empathy and one's own reasoning, so it's basically outsourced morality and just following what is told.

I don’t see any relevant difference between these definitions

Well, even if there were objective morality, it changes to subjective when it reaches to us because it requires interpretation.

[/quote]

That is an intriguing (but irrelevant) possibility, however objective facts are there regardless if they can be known by humans or not.

So to repeat my point, you argument works only if you grant objective morality, if the bible is objectively morally wrong, then Christians would be in problems, but if the bible is wrong only according to your own personal and subjective opinion, then it would be irrelevant.